He isn't urging anything practical, like a boycott or sanctions; he simply wants athletes to "give a signal". This, of course, is how the European Parliament itself operates. It is the supreme embodiment of the "send a message" school of legislation. Its laws and resolutions are chiefly declamatory, designed to show its proponents in a good light rather than to have practical consequences. That is why the real-world consequences are so often unintended and deleterious.

No matter. A signal can sometimes be better than nothing at all, and it is to Hans-Gert's credit that he is prepared to criticise the Beijing autocracy. In recent years, European leaders have been driving the Americans, in particular, to distraction by their readiness to cosy up to China's Communists. The EU has declared its intention to end the arms embargo, imposed after the Tiananmen massacre. It is collaborating with China on the Galileo satellite system, designed to rival America's GPS (which Jacques Chirac denounced as "technological imperialism"). At a time when the US complains about the way Beijing gives foreign aid to African despotisms, Brussels is giving aid to (or, if you prefer, recycling aid through) China. Against this background, Hans-Gert's article is welcome.

But I'm confused about one thing. If it is wrong for Beijing to impose its rule on the Tibetans in the name of harmonisation, why is it right for Brussels to impose its rule on equally historic nations? Surely the national principle applies to Europe, too. If Tibet can legitimately aspire to independence, Germany must have the same right.